The screenshots of the chat logs are really something. This firm claims to be in communication with the actual criminal, and the actual criminal says that using their firm would have helped prevent the breach.
I have updated my sense of the firm's trustworthiness accordingly.
This is just pure speculation, but it kind of looks like the hacker was being ignored by Snowflake, so they somehow got in touch with Hudson Rock and offered them this promotional opportunity (to break the news, more than the throwaway line in the article) with the goal of retaliating against Snowflake for failing to pay the ransom. And Hudson Rock agreed to play along and hype up the story, presenting it as a bigger breach than it really was. One wonders whether Hudson Rock was the first they went to, or just the first to take them up on the offer.
Are you trying to say that the threat actor is just going up to firms they're trying to extort and telling them lies? Criminals just going around lying to people? Don't they know that's against the law?
It's a common euphemism in ransomware and protection rackets in general. One of my favourites is the message the akira group leaves in infected machines that goes something like:
Congratulations, you have passed a surprise information
security audit and become a victim of ransomware.
[...]
We offer:
1) full decryption assistance
2) evidence of data removal
3) security report on vulnerabilities we found
4) guarantees not to publish or sell your data
5) guarantees not to attack you in the future
They're just a security consulting company that you didn't know you had on payroll!
Btw I looked at what they provide as evidence of data removal (2) and it's literally just the stdout of `rm -vrf data` lol. I mean, I get that it's impossible to provide evidence of absence, plus the victims have no leverage anyway, but I dig the theatrics.
Absolutely the case for me. I don't give Snowflake much here, but Hudson Rock sells this exact type of "protection" and so far including BBC, no other independent verification?
This from the GP's link does it:
“should have bought protection from Hudson Rock could have saved them this one”
I have updated my sense of the firm's trustworthiness accordingly.